M7 



Ox-^ 



7^ 



When Love Fights 




Sermon Preached March 10, 1918 

,ty. 

Rev. GEORGE REID ANDREWS 

___. of 

St. Paul's Congregational Church 
New York Avenue and Sterling Place 
BROOKLYN, N. Y. 








-*-^^^ ,^C^.c^^^ 




^ll>C^^^<:'^ 






WHEN LOVE FIGHTS 

^ ^ Sermon preached by 

L^ ^ Rev. GEORGE REID ANDREWS 

* ' of 

ST. PAUL'S CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 

New York Avenue and Sterling Place, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
March 10, 1918 



Lesson: Matt. 23:13-33 
Text: Matt. 27:42 — "He saved others; Himself he cannot save." 

Last Sunday we considered the nature of the Christian God, 
taking for our text, "God Is Love," and found love the essence 
of His being. I wish to supplement that line of thought today 
with a sermon on the me:hod of love, and our text is: "He saved 
others; Himself he cannot save." (Matt. 27:42.) I am led to 
preach on this subject today for two chief reasons: first, lest I 
may have left a negative impression in your minds last Sunday, 
a thing hard to avoid; and in the second place, because the subject 
is receiving so much attention just now both in public and private 
discussions. You who have read the newspapers recently know 
of the stir caused by a series of lectures delivered at Columbia 
University under the auspices of the Y. M. C. A., notably the 
one by Dr. Robert E. Speer, in which he is accused of taking a 
stand detrimental to the morale of our country in this life-and- 
death struggle in which we are engaged. By the way, let me 
say that 1 do not for one moment doubt the sincerity and pa- 
triotism of Dr. Speer, nor many others who are held up for rebuke 
under the general charges of treasonable utterances, those who 
are said to speak too kindly and compromisingly of our enemies; 
whatever their opinions, their hearts are right, and in the long 
run that is of chief importance. Dr. Speer is thought to be one 
of those ministers of love who feel that their code of ethics is 
incompatible with the force of arms and do not take the stand 
one should take in the common defense and prosecution of the 
war. Such men are commonly known as pacifists. 

The pacifists were much more numerous and vocal befor; 
the beginning of the war, particularly in the United States, than 
at the present time. General quietness reigns along the front, 
although an occasional gun is heard, as if to serve notice that 
demobilization orders have not been issued; the quietness is more 
of a truce than a cessation of hostilities. There has been no ex- 



tensive change of heart, the truce being called for prudential 
reasons. Such confusion reigns in the camp of the pacifists that 
it is impossible to face the enemy with a solid fighting front. 
What fighting is done is after the fashion of guerilla warfare and 
single-handed combat. Those who have fallen out of the fight 
give various reasons for their inactivity. Some argue that force 
and love rule the world, force until love is ready; love is not yet 
ready, they say, and until it is, force must hold the day. Chris- 
tianity is practicable ultimately but not yet sufficiently regnant 
in international affairs to maintain order and enforce law, the 
sword must yet be unsheathed. A similar line of Argument is 
recognizable in the theory of the "interim ethic" (made in Ger- 
many), according to which there is inevitably an interim between 
the dethronement of force and the enthronement of love, during 
which interim it is necessary to resort to the rule of force. Still 
others argue that whatever their individual opinions may be or 
may have been before the war they have no right to express 
them now that they are members of a democracy, and as such 
it is their duty to submit to the will of the majority. The ma- 
jority, through their duly constituted authorities, have voted to 
resist by force of arms, and every citizen, irrespective of his creed 
or color, must acquiesce in the popular will. There are those, 
moreover, who are confessedly confused; they are in the dark 
and find an unassertive attitude the prudential course. Somehow 
they hope and pray that in the stress and strain of battle the 
truth of God will emerge and men will learn in blood what they 
would not or could not learn in love. Further varieties I w^ill 
not here detail, pausing only long enough to point out the one 
element common to them all. Whatever their superficial differ- 
ences, at bottom, they all more or less vaguely feel that love and 
war are inherently irreconcilable. Such an attitude of confusion, 
compromise or suspended judgment is not very comfortable, espe- 
cially if one is of the draft age, and certainly does not make for 
the best morale in soldier or citizen. Such a lurking sense of 
inconsis':ency weakens will and paralyzes action. It is a matter 
that has engaged my best thought for a decade and more, and 
one that has haunted me night and day since we entered this w^ar. 
I have wanted to be a good citizen for my nation at war and at 
the same time I have v/anted to be an enthusiastic and faithful 
ambassador of love. I have felt the need of a satisfactory solution 
to this perplexing question, the more since I became pastor of 
this church and found myself standing beside these twenty-four 
stars of service (pointing to Service Flag beside pulpit), and faced 
from Sabbath to Sabbath with anxious hearts seeking a word of 
comfort from me in the name of the Great Comforter. 



In my desire to know the truth and to be faithful thereto, I 
have read widely and searchingly, I have talked with the repre- 
sentative men on both sides of the question in this city and else- 
where, but more or less in vain. Not one have I met who could 
give me a satisfactory answer to the pressing question, The Method 
of Love. On both sides I have talked with men whose names 
are known to you all to find them sincere and right in spirit, but 
each time I came away with the positive assurance that they 
were conscious of a lurking inconsistency between their program 
and their principles. An inconsistency gnaws at my heart strings, 
it cuts my motor nerves, and until I can get at least a working 
principle I cannot do my best work. Nor can you. If we would 
work enthusiastically and in the courage of conviction, our lips 
and lives must agree. For me the light has dawned. I come to 
you today with a positive message. It is the first time I have felt 
secure enough to declare myself in public on this subject. What 
follows is the result of years of patient study from experience, 
from history, and, most of all, from the life of Jesus. I speak 
from the courage of conviction with no lurking fear of com- 
promise or inconsistency, and I pray you to follow me closely, 
and prayerfully. 

Let us examine again and carefully the nature of love, believing 
as I do that when we understand its nature we shall not be con- 
fused as to its method. There are two aspects of love we must 
consider, love offensively and love defensively. The way in which 
love w^ins and the way in which love defends. There is a method 
of defense in love as well as that of offense, and the one is just 
as instinctive as the other. Pacifists and preachers of love have 
understood fairly well the method of love's offense. They have 
said, and rightly, that love wins by loving. We all learn by 
experience that love cannot be forced. What lover does not know 
that only by gentle wooing can the heart of his bride be won? 
"Love me," should he say, in commanding tone, he knows would 
surely repel her and freeze every swelling current of her soul. 
Love cannot be forced; it responds only to love. The initiates 
into the secret of love have understood the 13th chapter of I Corin- 
thians. They have proven and know that love suffers long and 
is kind; love know^s no jealously; love makes no parade, gives 
itself no airs, is never rude, never selfish, never irritated, never 
resentful; love is never glad when others go wrong; love is glad- 
dened by goodness, always slow to expose, always eager to believe 
the best, alv*rays hopeful, always patient; love never fails. This 
was the way of the Master; He never commanded or drove, pa- 
tiently and tenderly and lovingly he invited all who would to 
come unto Him for light and life. He undertook to show that 



His burdens were light and His duties, privileges. As He sought 
to win the individual heart, He relied solely upon the gentle per- 
suasiveness of love. And we succeed only as we use His method, 
inspired by His spirit. The heart of the heathen can be won to 
the gospel of love only as they see love incarnate in the lives of 
our missionaries going about doing good. In vain would we send 
books by the millions and homilies on love; they would serve only 
to gather dust on forgotten shelves. God so loved that He gave 

so must we. The essence of love is selflessness. It gives all 

and so wins all. 

But the defense of love has not been so well understood. At 
this point the confusion begins. Some hold that love makes no 
defense at all, that it wins by its defenselessness, that it wins by 
dying. The cross of Christ is the supreme example of this method 
of love's redemption by its death. According to orthodox Chris- 
tianity generally, Christ came to die in order that He might defend 
His own. His defense was somehow conditioned on His death. 
He fought in order that He might die according to this view. 
This conception of the cross has had far-reaching consequences 
on the ethics of Christianity. It came to its completest ex- 
pression in the Christian Church during the Middle Ages. One 
naturally thinks of the pathos and patience, resignation and long- 
ing, meekness and mildness, the inexpressibly sad gentleness and 
wistfulness portrayed by the artists of the day in the delineations 
of the Master. It is the sort of interpretation that holds before 
the devout Roman Catholic the Saviour in shocking immodesty, ex- 
posing his heart with his own hand. Our hymnology, for the most 
part, is inspired by this conception of vicarious love. Now I am 
not blind to the power and beauty of vicarious suffering and 
death. I know that the precious blood of the Saviour redeems the 
saved to a higher and purer life; but it is an indirect result of 
love. Love does not fight for the beloved in order that it may die. 
Love fights because of its passion for the object of its affection. 
Love may be killed in the defense, but it does not fight in order 
to be killed. It is just as natural for love to fight for the beloved 
as it is to win the beloved by wooing. If you have ever loved 
passionately, you will grant the truth of this statement at once. 
What mother would stop to consider a moment her own safety 
if the child of her heart was being abused by a ruffian. She might 
be killed, but she would not fight to be killed. What father? Do 
you suppose that I should hesitate a fraction of a second to fly 
to the rescue of my boy were he assailed by a brute? At the 
assailant's throat I'd fly, not counting the cost. A pistol held at 
my heart would not deter me a moment. Parental love would 
answer the cry of distress, instinctively using any and every 



means at hand for his relief. Yes, love fights, and it fights fiercely 
and fearlessly for its own. That is why the wrath of offended 
love is so terrible. That is why parental wrath is so terrible 
toward the despoiler of a daughter beloved. That is why re- 
ligious wars have been so cruel and ferocious. Offended love is 
instinctively wrathful and terrible in its defense. What must be 
the wrath of God, who is love, against the despoilers of His own. 

Thus understanding the nature of love, we can understand 
the heart of Jesus who was the incarnate love of the Father. We 
can now understand the 23rd chapter of Matthew, which i read 
for our lesson. This chapter has been a stumbling block to stu- 
dents who read the life of Jesus, according to the 13th of 1 Corin- 
thians only. They have been unable to reconcile the Jesus of 
the 23rd of Matthew with the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount. 
The difference is too great. I read it for you, I hope, in something 
of the spirit in which it was uttered. 1 tried to make you feel 
its sting, feel its scathing rebuke. How could the meek and lowly 
Jesus, how could He who said, "Love your enemies, bless them 
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them 
which despitefully use you and persecute you;" who said, "Resist 
not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn 
to him the other also;" who said, "If any man will sue thee at 
the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." 
and who stood with hands down, let His enemies spit upon Him, 
beat Him, curse Him, nail Him to the cross, and as the cruel nails 
pierced his hands and feet, with his dying breath prayed, "Father 

forgive them, for they know not what they do" how could that 

Jesus stand before the most learned men of Israel and pronounce 
judgment against them with words that burn and blister: "Woe 
unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto 
whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward but 
are within full of dead men's bones, and all filth. Ye blind guides 
which filter out gnats and swallow camels. Ye serpents, ye brood 
of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell!" The answer 
is to be found in the heart of Jesus. He loved God who is love; 
He loved his fellow man with a holy passion; and when He saw 
the lives of little children, widows and orphans being ground out 
by the leaders of Israel in the name of religion, it was too much 
for his loving heart; with a wrath proportionate to his love He 
p^.eaded and fought for them as love can and will. 

This attack of His upon the leaders of Israel turned the 
battle upon Himself. And here the amazing thing happened; He 
offered no resistance whatever in word or act. He went to the 
cross without a murmur. For others He fought; for Himself He 
lifts not a finger nor will He let anyone else defend Him. Herein 



has lain the problem. But it should not be a problem if we under- 
stand the nature of love. Love saves others; itself it cannot and 
will not save. It ceases to be love the moment self enters in 
Christianity is selflessness, after the spirit and example of its 
founder. This attitude of Jesus tow^ard His ow^n w^elfare is that 
wreckless abandon characteristic of love. During his brief minis- 
try He had told his disciples not to fear for their own safety and 
He lived and died by his gospel. "He saved others; himself He 
cannot save." 

The extreme pacifist, better spelled passivist, represented in 
the past by Count Tolstoy of Russia and by John Haynes 
Holmes of New York today -^vho believe in and practice the gospel 
of non-resistance to the point even of saying that they would not 
resist a ruffian who might assail their wives on the street, has 
taken this attitude of non-resistance of Jesus toward his own per- 
sonal offenders to mean no resistance to all offenders against our 
fellow man. Such an interpretation is to miss the w^hole tenor 
of Christianity both as taught and lived by Jesus. He did not 
fight for himself but he did fight unceasingly for others when they 
were set upon by cunning, cruel men. This false interpretation 
of the life and teaching of Jesus is at the foundation of all Christian 
pacificism of whatsoever variety. Jesus by example and precept 
bids us be careless about our own safety and comfort; but he bids 
us also fling ourselves unreservedly into the battle for our defense- 
less fellow man. He loved, therefore, he fought and fought to 
the finish. 

The bearing of our thought upon the present national crisis 
must be evident to you at this point. A great deal is being said 
just now about the place of the pulpit in the nation's fight for 
liberty and international righteousness. An article by Mr. Joseph 
H. Odell in the Atlantic Monthly for February, 1918, dealing with 
this subject has created a great deal of discussion in the theological 
and popular v/orld. I have read the article very carefully. Mr. 
Odell is right in spirit but he seems not to get down to the under- 
lying principle that accounts for the attitude of the American 
pulpit. He arraigns the clergymen of the country of all the de- 
nominations for their apathy and lack of moral leadership. It is 
more condemnation and exhortation than a careful analysis of the 
existing situation and a prescription of remedies. He says the 
church is callous. If the church is callous it is because it is love- 
less. If the church refuses to fight it is because she does not 
love enough to fight, or does not understand that the things she 
loves are iri imminent danger; if the church will not fight the 
offender, it is because she does not love sufficiently the offended. 
If the church loved enough and loved in particular she could not 



help fighting; love protects her own. Mr, Odell speaks about her 
founder, the Christ, as the "Conqueror" and bids us conquer in 
his name and after his example. Conqueror is the wrong title for 
Jesus; it sounds too much like the loveless warrior who fights be- 
cause he glories in battle. "Defender" is far better. Jesus Christ 
was the passionate defender of his beloved. He was fearless in 
the face of his foes and the cross because he was aflame with love 
for God and his fellow man. He was no hero, he was no con- 
queror, he was no lord; he was the great lover and therefore the 
great defender. He went to his death fighting for his own. He 
got a cross but not the "iron cross" of reward; it was the cross 
of love. 

Do you ask me what accounts for the condition against which 
Mr. Odell raves? The answer is easy. First, we are scant of love. 
We have been selfcentered so long we cannot love much beyond 
ourselves. We do not love America in the way we should. We 
do not appreciate America. With all her imperfections we do not 
appreciate what she has done and is doing throughout the world 
for the cause of liberty and justice and the peace of righteousness. 
We do not know the passion that drove our forefathers to bleed 
and die for liberty, for justice, for democracy. The red in the Stars 
and Stripes means little to us. Robert G. Ingersoll once exclaimed, 
"Whoever saw men shoulder guns and go out in defense of board- 
ing houses." Men who love home and friend and fireside alone 
know how to fight and will fight. They fight because they love. 
Too inany American citizens are mere boarders; and no wonder 
they do not feel the call to fight. They do not fight because they 
do not love and they do not love because they have not given. 

In the second place, we have little understood the foe that 
waits and fights like a lion to pounce upon our fair land and 
beloved. We have tried to believe that there is no longer in this 
world of civilization a nation so cruel or loveless as to want to 
snatch from us the cherished objects of our affection. We have 
only to listen to the wail of Belgium, the silent grief of France, the 
groans of Russia, the starving cries of Servia and Armenia to know 
what fate awaits us in the event of our defeat. The highway of the 
nations of w^hich Isaiah fondly dreamed is not yet safe for the feet 
of our beloved; it is still infested with robbers and ravenous beasts 
and love must vigil keep and warfare make until in safety they 
may walk. 

I fancy I hear the objection that this argument of mine is 
equally valid for the German as for the American, and the Belgian. 
In principle, yes, in practice, not. The Germans are fighting not 
because they love but because they must. They are fighting as 



slaves, not as free men. They are the instruments of an irre- 
sponsible, autocratic war machine that fights for conquest and the 
glory of battle. Now I am sure there are thousands of Germans 
who have died and will die in the conviction that they were dying 
for fireside and Fatherland. We pity them the while we know 
that the conviction has been inspired through false alarms by that 
same war machine to achieve their sinister and selfish ends. We 
fight not because we must but because we may. In a sense we 
must; we are under the compulsion of love. We love our mothers, 
our wives, our children, our homes, and our fair land, and the 
more we love them the readier will we be to defend to the death. 
We could not fight so bravely did we not love so much. 

What then is my message to the pulpits of America? What 
is to be the message of my pulpit? Not hate. We do not have 
to nor will we compose and sing our songs of hate. We will not 
preach hatred for anyone. Our message shall continue to be that 
of love, love for America, love for France, love for Belgium, love 
for Russia, love for liberty, love for justice, love for democracy, 
love for friend, yea, love for foe, love for wives, love for children, 
love for all that's good and noble, in short, love for God; and at 
the same time we will open the eyes of the strong and brave 
to the crouching, cruel enemy ready to pillage and murder, and 
to a man we'll rise, brave in the courage of love to do and to de, 
if need be, not counting the cost until in safety our beloved 
may dwell. 

In concluding let us ask a very searching question that comes 
almost unconsciously to our lips. Must love always fight? Must 
Calvary ever stand in the path of love whether far or near? No! 
Thank God, No! There is a way out. It is the way of love. Love 
in its offense will secure its defense. Every heart will one day 
yield to it gentle sway and then in safety all may dwell. Patiently, 
tenderly, pleadingly, love will knock at every heart until every 
stronghold of sin and selfishness will capitulate and love reign 
supreme in every heart in every land. Until that day come she 
will defend her own as truly as she seeks to win her way to the 
uttermost parts of the world. The while we fight, therefore, we 
look to the dawning of that better day when the kingdoms of this 
world shall have become the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ, when every heart subdued to his allegiance, there 
will be no need to fight for there will be non to offend. Perfect 
love casteth out all fear. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

iiii. 



